Some socialist moocher name of Dean Baker sets out to fight yet another desperate rear guard action for the increasingly ludicrous AGW scam.

The right’s reaction to President Obama’s new plan to curb carbon emissions from power plants follows a similar storyline of entitlement.

Baker’s referring to a pathetic attempt at a smear of Cliven Bundy, using former Enron advisor Paul Krugman as his sole source, which is why we didn’t even bother. If you use anything that Cluck-cluckman ever wrote for anything not involving the wrapping of animals living in the sea, you’re doing it wrong.

Obama proposed a 30% reduction in emissions over the next 15 years, which will substantially reduce the use of coal and likely to lead to a modest increase in electricity prices.

(The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the additional cost per household will be less than $50 a year.)

Well pardon us! If a government agency says so, it simply has to be true. Just like everything they’ve said about the cost of ObamaCare, how we could keep our plans if we liked them, how healthcare premiums would drop, how the IRS absolutely NEVER targeted Enemies of The Party, how Benghazi was just a demonstration against a YouTube gone terribly wrong etc. etc. etc. How could we have ever doubted them?

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are having a measurable impact on the global climate,

No. They’re not. Or, if they are, it’s upon you to prove it. Right after you prove to us how Mammoths driving V8 Hemis ended the last Ice Age with their emissions. Until then, you can repeat your claim as much as you like, it does not make it a fact.

and this is causing damage to people’s property and in many cases jeopardizing their lives.

Proof of actual damage incurred, please, along with proof of causative link between CO2 (aka “plant food”) and said damages. Until then, kindly keep your ludicrous assertions to yourself.

But Republicans quickly raced to be first in line to condemn this massive government intervention in the economy.

Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi was quick to say, “Families shouldn’t have to pay $1,200 more per year for electricity so President Obama and environmental activists can have political peace of mind.”

And the government massively intervening in the economy is NOT a massive government intervention in the economy? Please explain. Or perhaps you’d at the very least explain what your point is?

Joseph Bast, the president of the conservative Heartland Institute trashed the proposal by saying, “This is Obamacare for the environment: guaranteed to raise costs, reduce choices, and destroy an existing industry. By the time EPA is finished, millions of Americans will be freezing in the dark.”

That’s pretty much exactly what Obama said. Are you calling Der Führer a liar???

The argument against taking steps to reduce carbon emissions is an argument that we have the right to impose the costs and risks on others without taking responsibility.

Only if you jump to conclusions. In order for it to be that, you’d first have to prove, prove, mind you, that any costs and risks are being imposed.

It is essentially like arguing that I have the right to throw sewage on my neighbor’s lawn because I would find it inconvenient to build a proper sewage disposal system.

No. As things are currently, it’s like me refusing to convert my children to Satanism in spite of your heartfelt belief that our stubborn Christianity is causing your goats to miscarry.

Rising ocean levels and the increasing frequency of severe weather events mean that hundreds of millions of people in low-lying areas face increased risks from storms and flooding.

It might. If the ocean levels were rising along with the frequency of severe weather events AND you could link that, provably, to increased CO2 levels. Which they aren’t, and you can’t.

Checkmate.

While people in wealthy countries will largely be able to protect themselves from the worst of this damage, poor people living in densely populated countries like Bangladesh will not be as lucky.

This whole “burden of proof” thing still frightens and confuses you, doesn’t it?

What His Imperial Majesty CAN tell you, for sure, is that Der Führer’s necessarily skyrocketing electricity rates will hit the poor the hardest. Obama’s commissars in their dachas won’t be affected in the slightest. They’ll just decree a raise for themselves.

There is a similar story about desertification in many areas, especially Sub-Saharan Africa. There are tens of millions of people living in regions where limited rainfall provided enough water for subsistence agriculture.

Note to readers: Droughts and deserts never existed prior to the internal combustion engine. If somebody tells you so, they’re lying. And likely racist cisgendered heteronormative patriarchs as well.

As the planet gets warmer, these regions will turn into desert.

Never happened before. The climate has always stayed the same. Just check out the Roman vineyards in Britain one day. And then racist cisgendered males raped Holy Mother Gaia with their pounding pistons of gas-powered dooooom! The bastards.

Their inhabitants will face starvation or risk becoming refugees in the hope that someone will care for them.

Conversely, people living in hitherto uninhabitable, frozen tundras, will suddenly be able to grow corn and graze livestock. The bastards!

In addition to these relatively well defined threats,

If that’s what you call “well defined…”

climate change will cause damage in many ways that are much less predictable. For example, changing climate conditions are likely to introduce new bacteria to areas for which the existing ecosystem might be ill-prepared. This can devastate livestock and crops and possibly even have serious health consequences for the human population.

So, as with Bundy, conservatives can argue that this is simply a case of the government trying to tell people what to do and, as with Bundy, they’d be wrong.

Because neither the government telling Bundy and other ranchers that they can’t graze their cattle because it hurts the desert tortoise (who’s been living happily with the cattle for a couple of centuries), nor the government telling private citizens that they can’t heat their homes in the winter is the government telling people what to do.

English is not your first language, is it, Mr. Baker? Is it your 2nd? Your 3rd? Your 238th?

For Enzi, Bast and other conservatives, “freedom” – at least in the context of the debate over global warming – is apparently the right to actively harm others with the government’s permission and even its participation.

No. Freedom is government butting the fuck out. Granted, you being a submissive, groveling, socialist Limey cunt, that probably confuses you as well as frightens you more than a little bit, but that’s your problem. And don’t try to make it mine. For your own sake. I’m heavily armed, and one dead socialist more or less isn’t going to hurt my ledger in The Book significantly.

They seemingly believe that you have a god-given right to, in effect, throw your sewage on your neighbor’s lawn even though, if applied universally, this would mean that any given neighbor has the right to dump their sewage on your lawn, too.

Again with your failed analogy. However, I should very much like to see my neighbor trying to dump his sewage on my lawn, although I rather think that he’d find the consequences… disagreeable. What he chooses to do with his sewage on his OWN property, on the other hand, is none of my mumping business.

But freedom has a somewhat different meaning for those who feel the obligation to be responsible for the damage they cause and to be consistent in our proclamations about the world.

Go ahead and live that way, then. In my world, you’re more than free to do so. Go ahead and freeze in the dark if you like, I’m not going to stop you. But if you touch MY thermostat, you’re not likely to bring your fingers back home with you.

Somehow I suspect, however, that you’re not in the slightest interested in that. You are, on the other hand, perfectly fine with somebody else paying for your holy preferences.

and this is causing damage to people’s property and in many cases jeopardizing their lives.

Isn’t that exactly what all the efforts espoused to curb Global Climate Disruption are going to do?

The argument against taking steps to reduce carbon emissions is an argument that we have the right to impose the costs and risks on others without taking responsibility.

The argument for taking steps to reduce carbon emissions is an argument that we have the right to impose the costs and risks on others without taking the responsibility.

Their inhabitants will face starvation or risk becoming refugees in the hope that someone will care for them.

Exactly according to the Progressive ROE. If they’re willing to toe the Progressive line, then they’ll be “taken care of”. If not, starvation will “take care of” them. Hey, it worked in Ukraine!

For Enzi, Bast and other conservatives, “freedom” – at least in the context of the debate over global warming – is apparently the right to actively harm others with the government’s permission and even its participation.

Which is completely different from using the specious “Global Warming” to claim the right to actively harm others with the governments permission and even its participation. Obviously. sniff.

But freedom has a somewhat different meaning for those who feel the obligation to be responsible for the damage they cause and to be consistent in our proclamations about the world.

Yes. Conservatives feel the obligation to be responsible for the damage they cause and to be consistent in their proclamations about the world. Believers in Global Cooling -Warming, Climate Change-Disruption? Not so much.

The best way to combat Climate Change, especially in the months between November and April, is to set a believer of Global Warming on fire and use them for heat.angrywebmaster recently posted..Next under the bus, Chuck Hagel!

For Enzi, Bast and other conservatives, “freedom” – at least in the context of the debate over global warming – is apparently the right to actively harm others with the government’s permission and even its participation.

The dozens of British pensioners who freeze to death every winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes with green energy were unavailable for comment

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the additional cost per household will be less than $50 a year.)

Horse hockey. MY electric bill went up 10/month. Now, I’m an English major, not a math major, but I’m not THAT bad in math. 10×12=120. That’s way more than 50, in fact, it’s almost three times as much.